Skip to main content

About this Show


News/Business. (2013) New. (CC) (Stereo)




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Virtual Ch. 107 (CURNT)






Fbi 15, Us 12, Vo 9, Cispa 6, Boston 5, Florida 5, John Fuglesang 4, Kansas 3, New York 3, Harry Reid 3, Underworld 3, Obama 3, Sopa 3, Tsa 3, Aclu 3, S&p 3, John 3, Michael Jackson 3, North Dakota 2, Max Baucus 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  Current    Viewpoint    News/Business.   
   (2013) New. (CC) (Stereo)  

    April 23, 2013
    5:00 - 6:00pm PDT  

can always get more "the young turks," "viewpoint" is next. >> john: max baucus is leaving the senate. this means that for the first time in years, there's a slight chance that his senate seat could finally go to a democrat. now that the boston bombing suspect has been caught, republican lawmakers have declared it safe to hate muslims again. the sequester has kicked in and flights are being delayed and what's really awful is this is making some lawmakers late for congressional sessions who voted to cutting more government programs. today is the birthday of william shakespeare, michael moore and lee majors, the $6 million man although due to sequester cuts, he's now the $3.5 million man.
shakespeare said, lord what tools these mortals be. eliot spitzer is here. i'm john fuglesang. this is "viewpoint." >> john: good evening, i'm john fuglesang. this is "viewpoint." less than a week after the manchin toomey gun control bill was defeated in the senate, one of the democrats who helped shoot is down is stepping down. democratic strategist say max baucus who chairs the powerful finance committee has decided to retire rather than run for re-election in 2014. baucus joined three other democrats senators mark pryor of arkansas mark begich of alaska and heidi heitkamp of north dakota in helping the minority of having a vote on a bill that would have strengthened background checks for gun buyers, a poll that 90%
of the people supported. but that number, the number that really counted in that debate was 60. the 60 votes need to the break a filibuster. supporters were able to muster 55 votes in favor of the bill, not enough to move it forward. even if the democrat defectors had stayed with their party. majority leader harry reid switched his vote to no to preserve an option to bring the bill up again. many critics are blaming president obama's inability to strike fear in the senate for the bill's failure to pass. former north dakota senator byron dorgan, a democrat, told "the new york times"... and "new york times" columnist maureen dowd, a perennial white house scold... >> john: at the white house monday, press secretary jay
carney insisted president obama did all he could but was blocked by the g.o.p. >> everybody here worked, from the president on down, worked hard to bring about this action on legislation. in the end congress has to vote on. the fact is there was a decision made largely within the republican party that they did not need to listen to the majority of the american people. >> john: does president obama deserve to be blamed for the gun bill's failure? for more, i'm delighted to be joined by former new york governor and current tv superstar, eliot spitzer. level thank you for inviting me back. >> john: you're a former chief executive of a state. if a bill face to pass the legislature, does the chief executive deserve the blame? >> it is a little more nuanced than a yes or no. the answer is sometimes and there are times when an executive, whether a governor or mayor or the president obviously should bring the full weight of his or her office to bear, to do
everything possible, cut the deals, make the trades, do the sorts of back room maneuvering that we scorn in our more puritan cal moments of purity when we cry for reform. month, those are the things that got the great legislation from social security to healthcare to the civil rights act through the legislature. so you do. that the question with president obama, in my mind is not whether he could have gotten the four plus one republican, maybe that wasn't possible. even with 90%. the question i think this is where you and i in our conversations over many months have been frustrated, why 60? in other words did the president fail or perhaps -- did he do of his own agenda by acquiescing to senator reid, majority leader's reid failure and refusal to push filibuster reform so that 50 was enough to pass an agenda. that's where i feel the absence. >> john: that's the big question here. harry reid deserves a lot of the credit for this thing never getting to have the up-or-down
vote the president so eloquently called for in his state of the union address. harry reid promised us filibuster reform. >> i'm with you. there is a lot of chatter and grievant among the punditry class. i say with some admiration, some scorn that this is where it has to be addressed. if we're going to get anything done. then when we got to the magic moment in january, somehow over a weekend, there was you know, a debt crisis or a sequestration screaming and shouting and suddenly filibuster reform. we did something small trust us. every two years when they bring in the new congress, that's when the rules are subject to change with what they call the nuclear option where 51 would be enough to change the filibuster vote from 60 -- >> john: you mean democracy. >> democracy. constitution is premised on majority rule except in those very rare instances, defined in the constitution where a supermajority is needed. we've gone to a supermajority
all the time which gives this extraordinary power, i don't know the numbers you may remember them. the percentage of the population that is now controlled by 20, 40 united states senators. montana getting two. that's fine in principle but when you get too many like that, people representing the tiny amount of the population can stop everything. >> john: we're living in an era of unprecedented political realities. our republican friends opposing the president and stonewalling for their own political survival when they're terrified of a primary challenge if they cooperate in any way, how can anything possibly happen and does the president deserve blame as the pundits have piled on him for not finding a new way around this? >> sometimes yes. some of the issues are emotional difficult. you can't blame -- i hate to use the word blame. when things don't go right everybody is there to blame. easiest thing in the world to do. hence, i hesitate to do it. i think structurally, the white house has to be saying wait a
minute, the state of the union was premised on one thing. we will get a vote on this. this whole notion of gun control was watered down to pretty thin gruel. it only became a background check. no bans on assault weapons. no bullet control. it really became the thinnest of thin thin. they couldn't get a vote on it. they have to be scratching their heads saying wait a month, this is a four-month political train wreck. >> john: lbj could have strong armed me but lbj still lived in the era of earmarks. president obama doesn't. it is almost like he can't even drive people to get what he needs. >> yes and no. earmarks in new york state are called member items. when they're done above board with full trance -- transparency, we need money for this road improvement or national park. as long as there's complete transparency there's nothing insidious about those. maybe we went too far in eliminating them. i don't know what the rules down in d.c. are anymore. here's what i would say.
the president and i take this from "the new york times" article, didn't even go so far as to say to the alaska senator you voted against me. i'm not having a cabinet member go to your state for the next nine months. every time you want a constituent to come to the white house, they have to wait outside. there are a range of things, petty, mean-spirited nasty. somewhere in there there is a medium that is an appropriate response for a president to say look personally i'm disappointed in heidi heitkamp. we were ags at the same time. mark pryor ags at the same time. i feel like going to them saying are you kidding? >> john: your friends visit the white house. hide of heitkamp isn't running for re-election. neither is baucus. the vote never would have gone -- they want to leave with a pristine record? >> i can't crawl inside the mentality. >> john: do it, eliot. crawl inside. >> there are times i've done it.
i've had a lot of debates from people. i don't understand -- somebody who said -- who agrees with us and said you're telling me you want psychopaths to be able to buy guns without our knowing it. this one is such -- really is close to a stark right and wrong as any gun control issue. >> this gun bill is open to amendments including any state obey other state's concealed carry laws. that got more votes on the gun bill. given democrats couldn't even get this to work, does it feel like the whole bill was doomed to the start? >> which makes you wond whrer they counted noses properly back in january. remember, it was after the horrific events in connecticut. there was an emotional moment and maybe the president said look, i know the votes aren't there. we're going to build and build and build just as the votes aren't there for healthcare initially. maybe he said we've got work to do. i'm not going to shy away from the fight. it does make you wonder whether on an issue like gun control
they should have said earlier on, guys where are the votes? who do we need to work on? how do we get pryor and heitkamp? >> john: i know god forbid they find out the gun used to kill the mit cop was purchased illegally. it will be politicized all over again. i want to switch gears briefly because i can't keep you for the full hour. the rating agency, standard & poors, our old friend they want to judge the -- the judge to throw out the department of justice fraud suit that accuse of it lying of conflicts of interest that played a role in the meltdown back in 2007 and 2008. does s&p have a case here? >> i love their defense. i love it because of the warped world you have to live in to even be able to articulate it. let alone begin to believe it. their defense is nobody should ever have believed us anyway. so they're scratching their heads. your whole business model is now being denigrated by your lawyers
who are telling us you didn't just lie intentionally but we all knew -- should have known you were lying all along and you're not worth anything. first is we got it wrong. we didn't intentionally dissemble but their motor subtle argument is everybody knows we're just guessing so give us a break. throw it up in the air hope it falls the right way anyway. same thing i heard go back a decade. what we call the analyst case where is all of the analysts were saying bye bye bye -- buy, buy buy buy buy because they were being paid under the table. everything is sort of -- we can do no wrong because if we are wrong, you shouldn't have trusted us anyway. fine. why do we ever trust them? throw them in jail. i think the judge will not throw it out. the s&p complaint if you read it, it tells a very persuasive tale of s&p undercutting the integrity of its ratings because it wanted the profits, market share and it knew it should have done better but didn't want to go there because we'll lose
money. >> john: that will ruin my whole view of wall street. when can i vote for you? former new york governor and attorney general eliot spitter great to you have back in your own house. >> thank you. >> john: can we really stop every terrorist act before it happens? former fbi special agent mike german talks about the boston bombing case next.
(vo) later tonight current tv is the place for compelling true stories. >> jack, how old are you? >> nine. >> this is what 27 tons of marijuana looks like. (vo) with award winning
documentaries that take you inside the headlines, way inside. (vo) from the underworld, to the world of privilege. >> everyone in michael jackson's life was out to use him. (vo) no one brings you more documentaries that are real, gripping, current. i think the number one thing that viewers like about the young turks is that we're honest. they can question whether i'm right, but i think that the audience gets that this guy, to the best of his ability, is trying to look out for us. >> john: welcome back. our thing of the day tonight is our show's de jure which is just french for saying thing of the day. but france just became the 14th country in the world to approve marriage rights for same-sex couples. it wasn't easy. france has a lot of social conservatives out in the countryside and they're still protesting this as the french are demure when it comes to
their sexual relations. as of today, same-sex couples can finally get married in that city of romance paris and not just in that other city of romance, seattle. while authorities continue to piece together the causes of last week's attack at the boston marathon, they're finally getting some answers from one of the alleged attackers 19-year-old dzhokhar tsarnaev. tsarnaev was visited yesterday by a judge who formally arraigned him and read him his rights in his hospital room after which tsarnaev nodded he understood the charges against him. according to "the washington post," tsarnaev cited the united states military actions in iraq and afghanistan as two of the motives for the attack in boston. meanwhile, several political figures question the fbi's 2011 investigation into his older brother, tamerlan tsarnaev claiming the fbi was not as thorough as it should have been. the fbi's monitoring a foreign-born citizens living within the u.s. is more complex than is being acknowledged. fbi surveillance is more complex than simply targeting people who
look like they might be terrorists as former congressman joe walsh would have you think. >> we're at war and this country got a stark reminder last week, again, that we're at war. and not only should we take a pause, when it comes to our immigration, we need to begin profiling who our enemy is in this war. young, muslim men. >> john: for more on this, i'm pleased to be joined by mike german a former fbi special agent who now works as senior policy council with the aclu. pleasure to have you here, mr. german. what a resume you have. >> thank you very much. a little unusual. >> john: it is fascinating. seeing you've been on both sides of this, both monitoring extremist groups as an agent with the fbi and now working to protect people's civil rights at the aclu, how difficult is the balance between thorough surveillance of potential dangerous individuals and protecting those same people's right to privacy? >> well, you know, this is one of the reasons why i left the
fbi. is that i never viewed it as a balance. what i saw in working these cases was that the rules that are designed to protect civil liberties actually helped me as an investigator, focus my investigation on people who were actually intending to do harm, to violate the federal laws rather than people who were expressing ideas i found abhorrent but weren't involved in illegal activity. i found by working within the guidelines then, it required a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to focus my investigation, actually both protected civil liberties and improve my ability to hone in on the people who were doing harm. >> john: could you quickly give me an example of how that would work? how the parameters would help your investigation? >> sure. i worked cases against neonazis and undercover investigations and also anti-government militias. you know a lot of the speech that was routine in those
communities was horrible. and you know, incredibly racist and abhorrent to me, personally. but what i found was you know, these rules that required me to focus on behavior, actually helped me focus so i wasn't wasting my time, wasting investigative resources chasing down somebody and gathering information about them when they weren't actually doing harm. what i found in the groups is that the people who didn't -- who believed that they could achieve their goals through advocacy and through writing and by publishing, didn't want to engage in violence. and actually were against violence and said no, you know, they would meet knee me and say don't hang around with those people. they'll take you down the wrong path. that path leads to prison and jail, you know, we can win this by the power of our words. and by our advocacy. we don't need to go that way. so what i found is it actually
sort of put me into the correct community by making sure that i was limiting my exposure to those people. i was actually being forced into the community that was actually doing harm. >> john: let's get back to one of the people who went down the path of violence allegedly in the case of the fbi's 2011 investigation into tamerlan tsarnaev, many continue to make the argument that the fbi didn't follow through as much as they should have. perhaps going so far as to call tsarnaev a terrorist before he actually became one. while it is nice to see our conservative friends calling for more background checks, is there any validity to the argument that the fbi didn't do all they could with what the law allows? >> well, you know, i think we're a little early yet to know. one thing i do know is that you can't blame the fbi agents involved for failing to predict the future. in 2011, it very well may be the case that this subject himself would never have entertained the idea that he was going to do something like this down the road. if you had asked me two years
before i left the fbi whether i would be working at the aclu, i would have thought it was absurd. but yet, you know, circumstances changed and here i am. so you know, we don't always know what's going to happen in the future. i think what will be important for congress to look at is you know, a lot of the fbi's authorities have changed. clearly, it had the authority to investigate this person because they did. and you know there's nothing that would have prevented them from doing a thorough investigation once they had the authority to do an investigation. so i think the question will be that i think needs to be asked is you know, by spreading that net so broadly in what they collect now with the see something, say something, report every suspicious behavior, you know and the fbi having this no lead goes uncovered policy, are they sort of hurting themselves by creating so many false leads and chasing so many false leads that they're taking resources
away from real investigations but also sort of -- making it harder for the agents to understand what's a real lead and what isn't. so that, you know, if i go out on 100 interviews, all of which are nonsense based on somebody taking a picture of the washington monument or you know, somebody writing notes in a curious manner while they were sitting on a bus you know, i look at my inbox and i want to get those leads done. one of those happens to be this one and you're checking the boxes to get it done and not really paying attention, you can miss important details. >> john: a well-intentioned civilian population has no idea the amount of false leads that need to be chased down and the manpower that takes. do you think they would stand for a closed circuit like in london. would it violate our civil liberties? >> i think it would violate our civil liberties. unfortunately, you know, in lower manhattan, we're moving to that kind of a system. and you know, i think this case is a good example of why you
know, it is clearly not a deterrent to serious and violent crime and there are many studies in london because they've had the system there for so long that show it is not an effective deterrent of violence or serious crime. so if it's not a deterrent you know, is that really where we want to put those resources? or do we want to put them on real investigations? because if we put all of that money not just in the initial outlay for the cameras but also the maintenance, you know taking agents off the street to put them behind to monitor the cameras and whether that's effective in most criminal matters is still an open question. and you're sacrificing a lot of innocent people's privacy in the equation. so you know, often the security cameras are more just the appearance of security and we certainly don't want to trade our liberty for security theatre for something that looks like security but isn't improving the security. >> john: it is a fascinating topic. i could talk about this with you
all night. i hope you'll come back. former fbi special agent and senior policy counsel with the aclu mike german. thank you. >> any time. >> john: come back again. to all of you out there who ask can't the house of representatives actually do anything? turns out the answer is yes. they can threaten your internet privacy. that's coming up. the country and around the globe. >>dc columnist and four time emmy winner bill press opens current's morning news block. >>we'll do our best to carry the flag from 6 to 9 every morning.
(vo) later tonight current tv is the place for compelling true stories. >> jack, how old are you? >> nine. >> this is what 27 tons of marijuana looks like. (vo) with award winning
documentaries that take you inside the headlines, way inside. (vo) from the underworld, to the world of privilege. >> everyone in michael jackson's life was out to use him. (vo) no one brings you more documentaries that are real, gripping, current. >> john: tonight on wtf florida, we discuss how florida state lawmakers approved a bill hb351, that is meant to target sharia law but will apply to all foreign laws. some of which are of a ha braic nature. this law as the gentiles say is kind of meshugganah. the application of foreign law in certain cases bill, really rolls off the tongue, isn't doesn't it, is meant to ensure a florida judge doesn't move rule on a case using sharia law.
but this law would bar state courts from recognizing orthodox jewish divorce agreements. orthodox jewish divorces only happen rarely as opposed to american judges applying sharia law which only happens never. reach for comment all of the elderly jewish women in florida released a joint statement saying for once mr. big shot isn't too busy to call. never mind, it is no concern of yourself. if i'm subjected to sharia law don't worry about me. i'm only your mother. wtf, florida. your communities of jewish retirees are political kingmakers. nobody gets elected to national office without coming out in favor of a strong and secure boca raton so why are you passing a bill that would aggravate them? believe me, you're not angry about this law just disappointed. now. (vo) she gets the comedians laughing and the thinkers thinking.
>>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. you would rather deal with ahmadinejad than me. >>absolutely. >> and so would mitt romney. (vo) she's joy behar. >>and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking?
>> john: welcome back to "viewpoint." i'm still john fuglesang. last week, the cyber intelligence and sharing protection act or cispa sailed through the house of representatives and was met with little resistance from the public or on the internet. this was a far cry from early last year when internet piracy bills sopa and pipa were being hotly debated by congress and the backlash was brazen and bold including large protests and an expansive internet blackout i'm sure you all remember. why, you may ask? it is simple. sopa and pipa threaten the profits of large internet corporations but cispa threatens only the privacy of lowly internet users. while our personal information is obviously of value to us, it is nothing compared to the value of federal contracts that tech giants envision. leading them to spend 38 times
as much as cispa opponents to ensure support for the bill, according to the sunlight foundation. proving that our loss of internet privacy does come at a cost but it is one many internet corporations are willing to pay. we're joined now by technology correspondent for the "national journal," ryan fung. thank you for coming on "viewpoint." >> my pleasure. >> john: let's start off with the basics, what is the proposed purpose of cispa? >> cispa is a bill that tries to make it easier for the private sector to share information about cyber threats between it and the public sector, the government. >> john: okay. how would the passage of cispa affect the average internet user? >> well, there are a number of different ways that could happen. the key way that you alluded to is that most privacy advocates say that the bill was -- would let corporations share information that could include personal information such as
e-mails or contact information to the government and critics say that the government could then use that information to spy on americans and that corporations could use that information for -- any information that the government gives to them for marketing purposes. >> john: could the corporations share this information with other corporations? >> that it could yes. >> john: the average american would never know this was happening? >> well, that's not exactly true. i think what's important to focus on with cispa is that there are strong sort of -- there are strong reasons why the government -- why, in particular, the obama administration opposes cispa and issued a veto threat on it last week. there are important reasons why the privacy aspects of cispa haven't been addressed yet. >> john: okay. this is the third try for cispa. it was already rejected once by
the house. rejected once by the senate and now easily moved through the house. let me ask you how has the bill changed and why is this time any different than before? >> one thing that's different this time, actually is there's been a surge of support on the democratic side for cispa. and that's something we didn't see in either of the two fights previously over the bill. >> john: fascinating. i'm guessing the support might have something to do with money? >> that's an interesting question you bring up, john. in fact, when you look at the lobbying members the proponents of cispa outspent those who opposed the bill by a factor of 38-1. so it's kind of amazing that even though the proponents of cispa spent so much money that the opponents of the bill still have the upper hand. cispa, you know, had the white house veto threat against it. and it is still unclear whether
or not something like it could pass the senate. >> john: we mentioned earlier about the backlash last year to sopa and pipa and the broad outrage. why do you think ryan, the backlash to this bill, this year, has been so much more muted? >> well, i think you have to -- when you're talking about sopa and pipa, you sort of have to separate those into a separate category. those were -- those protests online were really kind of the first of their time. it was -- you know, i don't know that we'll see anything like it for some time. those are sort of unique circumstances and they really -- you know, highlighted how the internet community can be a powerful voice in shaping public opinion on internet issues. but i also think it is going to be a lot more difficult going forward in building the kinds of protests that you saw with sopa and pipa, precisely because those were the first ones that made an impact. >> john: i understand the major corporations were the ones leading the protest against sopa
and pipa. why do major tech corporations like verizon and. >> bill: and at&t support this one? what's the end game for them? it is more profit or more power or both? >> if you look at the president's executive order on cyber security, one of the big things it does is it makes it easier for the federal government to share information with the private sector but what it doesn't do is allow the private sector to share information both among corporations themselves as well as with the public sector. and so many companies such as verizon and at&t, as you say support cispa because most experts agree that in order for cyber security to work all around, you need a sort of two-way street. government has to provide information to the private sector and vice versa. >> john: you mentioned earlier, ryan, president obama has said he plans to veto cispa if it reaches his desk in its
current form. what would the president like to see changed and is the veto threat legitimate? >> well, i'm not policymaker so i'm not sure that i can speak to the legitimacy of the veto threat. however, i do think that you know, one of the big things that marks the veto threat from last year from the white house was that the obama administration opposed cispa on privacy grounds mainly. this time around, a lot of it is centered on the liability protections that are contained in the bill. obviously businesses have some reluctance to give up cyber information, especially when shareholders are concerned. a lot of what they're worried about is they could be sued by shareholders or the broader public for giving up this information to the government. and so one of the things that companies have been insisting on are strong liability protections to make sure that they've been somewhat protected from lawsuits. the white house, on the other
hand, thinks that those protections that are already written into the bill are just a little bit too strong and ideally, the obama administration says those would be curtailed a little bit. >> john: it will be fascinating watching how this thing plays out. technology correspondent for the "national journal," ryan fung, thank you for your time and expertise on this issue and for educating the rest of us about it. hope to have you again. >> thank you. >> john: my panel of nonexperts will be joining me ahead. maybe. you may have heard everybody's flights are delayed today. are you encouraged by what you heard the president say the other night? is this personal or is it political? a lot of my work happens by doing the things that i am given to doing anyway. staying in tough with everything that is going on politically and putting my own nuance on it. not only does senator rubio just care about rich people but somehow he thinks raising the minimum wage is a bad idea for the middle class. but we do care about them, right? vo: the war room monday to thursday at 6 eastern
(vo) later tonight current tv is the place for compelling true stories. >> jack, how old are you? >> nine. >> this is what 27 tons of marijuana looks like. (vo) with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines, way inside. (vo) from the underworld, to the world of privilege. >> everyone in michael jackson's life was out to use him. (vo) no one brings you more documentaries that are real, gripping, current. >> john: i asked all y'all what it would take for congress to finally act on a sequester and stephanie fredericks wrote... >> stephanie: come on, stephanie, take await pay of congress they won't have the resources they need.
afterall, i'm the one who caused it. if you have a comment for the show, tweet us at "viewpoint" or at john fuglesang use the hashtag "viewpoint" or post it on our facebook page. as for the budget sequester maybe it didn't get enough attention because really, who cares? cut the budget. kick out the welfare queens. well, for one thing it turns out government controls air traffic, my friends so when automatic cuts were triggered across the board 14,000 air-traffic controllers were each furloughed for 11 days between now and the end of the fiscal year. wait a minute. that means my flights are going to be delayed. this might actually inconvenience both the poor people and the rich people. well now we've got makings of a real tragedy. less we forget the sequester slams a delicate job market. it starves research funding that could yield results decades from now. it cuts so much money from the justice system. the director of southern ohio's public defender's office
actually had to fire himself due to budget cuts. well done, boehner. well done! if you read most sequester stories in the news today, you think it is about one thing. air-traffic control. because flight delays actually inconvenience news reporters. let's bring in the all-powerful panel and i'm so excited about this one. actor and comedian sherrod small who appears on every tv show including i love lucy and the kovacs show. i miss ethel and fred. >> harrison greenbaum who is headlining caroline's on broadway and the great paul mecurio. >> yes i came up with that title. it is brilliant. >> john: the great paul mecurio show. comedians ride airplanes a lot. how much of a problem is this going to be for the people who really matter, america's traveling comedians? >> i haven't been using airlines
recently. i found a nice discount on the chinatown bus. >> you know, look. i take planes a lot. obviously this is an issue and it is real. this all comes out of the sequester, right? the republicans don't want to raise taxes. they want to raise the debt ceiling but as part of that conversation was about raising taxes. they want smaller government which means unsafe government. let's replace amtrak with my son on a skateboard. >> why not. >> it is unstable. he's high when he's using it and it turns over when you don't want it to. >> john: rick perry wants to talk to you right now. it is true. we're looking at a difference between big government and good government. do people really take government for granted because the guys in government keep their jobs by demonizing their jobs. when it comes to something like this -- >> it will bite them in the tail. all of the guys who voted against the raise the debt ceiling and affected the air traffic right now, they gotta go
home to family who is affected by this. they're going to say what did you do? did you do this? they're going to learn the lesson. >> take a plane to get home. >> you're right harrison. something we're blaming on obama as well. they raised the debt ceiling multiple times for reagan, multiple times for george w. bush. john boehner forced this thing through the house. >> the irony is it is the republicans who didn't want to raise taxes on their constituents, especially the upper class. so they're now -- these people are trapped in airports. they have to buy chocolate bars that cost more than -- [ laughter ] >> i like it though because when you're sitting around the airport doing nothing you're stimulating the congressional experience. >> it is frightening. smaller government meant like less waste not cutting you know wasteful federal workers who, i don't know, keep planes from hitting each other! >> john: small government means you have to spend more time shopping at at tunes.
-- at altitunes. >> the average person takes a plane once every three or four years. >> you were talking about the research. also nuclear waste is being cut. we're not even getting rid of stuff that's going to kill our children and grandchildren. >> john: that's a good point. what other government services do you guys worry about that aren't getting the same funding? >> national parks. they'll cut old faithful to two eruptions a day. >> anything with kids, i say give all of the money to the kids man because they will kill us. so you want to keep them busy. plus they're going to take care of us once we get old. >> $2 of 6 -- they cut $2.6 million from the holocaust museum. the director said he was following orders. >> oh! >> john: the i.r.s. sent out furlough notices. if the i.r.s. has to slow down, is that a problem or is that a big problem?
that's how the government pays for itself. >> it is great. >> john: great for you. >> i have a lot of interaction with the i.r.s. a lot of interaction with them. let's say i talk to 50 guys from the i.r.s. three have been helpful. fire them. fire the rest of them. >> i'm on the other side of the fence on that because it is the i.r.s. -- we have debt issues. we have money issues. we're firing the people whose job is to collect money. when a brothel is going under you don't fire the hookers they say. i know, i'm running one. wait, did the i.r.s. hear that? >> you don't fire the cashiers when the store is in trouble. you have to keep making the sales. >> john: speaking of planes, by the way you still can't bring small knives on a commercial flight. the tsa was going to allow it starting thursday but a lot of flight crews complained so no in-flight -- >> they're against having weapons on their planes. what? >> john: are we ready to have little tiny knives. nothing dangerous like evian
water going through. that's a plot by dasani. it is italian for coke just sold you tap water. dasani was all you could buy in the airport. was this the wisest thing to fight for? >> the knives. everybody is focused on these knives because they say the word knives but you're allowed to bring hockey sticks, golf clubs. >> you can bring a knife on a plane. >> do you see the timing of it? you think it is a coincidence when they're telling us there will be 6,000 flight delays a day. you do not want to give dissatisfied customers weapons. that's why the marlins did away with bat day. >> you would be surprised how much damage you can do with a plastic knife. >> but there is a restriction if you have one of the little knives on, you're only allowed to draw three ounces or less of blood. there are restrictions. >> john: do you think we'll see a day when we can start carrying mouthwash or hair shampoo on to a plane again? >> i hope so. >> the tsa administrator's name is john pistol.
it could have been johnny bang bang. >> john: isn't this why other nations think we're nuts. our gun laws, other nations think we're crazy. how students in asia don't want to come here and study because they're terrified. >> make us look like a bunch of paranoid losers or even worse we have a political system built on fear and the more we obey, we'll keep showing up. >> i think it is an issue of pure laziness. the tsa said it is too difficult to find those little knives. well, isn't that the point? sometimes the most smallest minute things are the most dangerous like a hole in a condom. my son was born that way. it is missing the larger point of sort of -- >> asian kids don't want to come here and study anymore everybody else's grades go up. we're all making as now. >> john: do you guys foresee a point in time when we'll ever be able to board planes the way we used to? >> no. >> with a cigarette, no i.d. >> john: without taking your shoes off without making
90-year-old people get out of their wheelchairs? >> i travel amtrak and what happened just happened in canada in toronto where they attempted to derail the trains up there and the boston marathon. that has to be the next place where our lives change. you can walk on to a train with any bag you want and no one checks it. i'm shocked. >> john: one thing i will say about that, al-qaeda never -- >> check my bag all the time. >> they know you're going to sue and not pay taxes. >> john: that already happened in spain and al-qaeda tends to not do the same thing twice. after the break he said, hopefully, something else is the matter with kansas. you don't want to miss it. i'm going to get in trouble for this next bit. stick around. (vo) she gets the comedians laughing and the thinkers thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's
what you're saying. you would rather deal with ahmadinejad than me. >>absolutely. >> and so would mitt romney. (vo) she's joy behar. >>and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking?
>> john: quick question for the panel, do you really think we have a separation of church and state in this country? sherrod? >> john, that's an illusion. first of all, i know church and i know church people. they mettle. they get involved in everything. good luck having something without them involved in it. >> john: it is like a reese's cup we all live with. >> in the language of the lord. i don't know any hebrew. if you look at a gallup poll from 2012, 96% of people would vote for a black president. 95% would vote for a woman. 48% of people would vote for an
atheist. there is no reason it should influence state -- any kind of governmental decision. i think it is pretty clear in our government records. >> john: i want to say i'm not an atheist but i believe in them. paul? >> i actually just, based on the letter i got yesterday from my church which says if you vote for the candidate in favor of gay marriage, you will burn in hell, i'm going to say there is no separation of church and state. [ laughter ] >> john: that's great. okay, well i ask this because kansas senator sam brownback just signed an abortion bill that's one of the most restrictive in the nation blocking tax breaks for abortion providers and defines life as beginning at the moment of conception. which means the drinking age in kansas should technically by 20 years, three months. but these photos of brownback's copy of his bill are interesting because his notes reveal him writing all human life is sacred
unless you like the death penalty which makes you pro some life and at the top of the bill, the governor appears to have written the words jesus and mary. now, this is biblically awkward for a couple of reasons. first, they're not a couple. secondly, neither of them ever said anything against abortion. you see abortion has always been around. it will always be around. the push the ban roe v. wade will not stop abortion. women will run the risk of serious injury or infection and of being thrown in jail. that's the anti-abortion agenda. lie argue with anyone who is opposed to abortion on moral grounds. you have a right to use the legislative process to make abortions unsafe and illegal and throw women in jail. go for it. the people who justify their anti-abortion stance by using the bible like sam brownback need to remember the bible never prohibits termination of pregnancy. if a man injures a pregnant woman and she miscarries, the penalty is to be a fine as determined by that woman's
husband. it is not considered taking another life. in numbers chapter five, god lays out the details of a bizarre and nasty abortion ritual where if a woman is pregnant with another guy's child, a bitter water is to be made. i'm not saying it is pro abortion but the character god is very pro child killing. in exodus, god kills every egyptian first born. in samuel, god tells the israelites to kill all of the macalmights. he considers them to be ripped over. god promises to kill the infants of samaria and says women with child shall be ripped up. in first book of samuel, god commands the murder of suckling infants and any child who curses his parents should be put to death which would have wiped out half my junior high school. if you believe in all of the bible as literal including the story of noah's ark, god sent a flood that killed everyone
except noah and his family which means god killed every woman on ert which means god killed every pregnant woman which means god killed every unborn fetus. the fact is god is the least pro-life character in the entire bible. and potions like the one god recommends in numbers were commonplace in emperial rome. jesus was against the death penalty. he never said forgive us our trespasses as we lethally inject those who trespass against us. i'm not saying jesus would have been pro-abortion but if he met a woman who had to make the awful choice, i don't think he would have had them thrown in jail. so be against the practice of saving illegal abortion. we don't have an abortion problem but a birth control problem with an abortion symptom then you can get serious about providing birth control. how would republicans raise funds? gay marriages and mexicans, not always enough. that's "viewpoint" for tonight. i want to thank